My only question is: how will people know how to find this helpful information in the SNAFU! forum? Or is the re-naming of the fora our little way of acknowledging that TW's somewhat dead in the water?

I was more concerned about every thread degenerating into the same clichťd rubbish, rather than offensive material, putting people off coming here to be truthful. This does seem to have passed at the moment though. I do feel that there is not a need for that sort of material though. I am sure we can all be adult enough without having to resort to childishness.

Only goes to show how little you know about how this side functions, tw..

I take it you're trying to imply I'm actually somebody else starting with tw? Twister maybe?

Apart from the fact that I'm not, this is yet another abuse of power. See, when someone else suggests I'm someone else, it's funny. But when a mod does it, people think "Oh, he's a mod. He must know something". Well, stupid people who don't know me anyway. So, again, you're abusing your position.

Before, I was just offering some mild and I thought helpful criticism about how you might moderate less fractiously. Now I'm pretty much convinced you're just a lousy moderator, and a pathetic weasel of a human being.

If you want to dispel this mental image I have of you now, AdolfSunday, I suggest you apologize immediately. Or at the very least admit that your wild guess that I am someone beginning with tw is just that: a wild guess, not based on any secret mod knowledge.

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

Or at the very least admit that your wild guess that I am someone beginning with tw is just that: a wild guess, not based on any secret mod knowledge.

Har har, gotcha by accident. My hint at the right honourable TWer named twister was only in reflection of how you little altar picked up so quickly on twister's attack on me in that other thread. Nothing else.

But from your ferocious expression of inferiority I am now absolutely sure about what I have always thought: You are the fantastic character normally known as White Prism.

And by the way: There is no secret mod knowledge. Just logic. And apart from Adam and Evan noone can change the TW layout. At least not without hacking into it.

Particularly not one who is as big a closet right wing totalitarian dictator as EJ has just shown himself to be.

In reply to:

Or at the very least admit that your wild guess that I am someone beginning with tw is just that

I see he couldn't even bring himself to acknowledge this explicitly either, but at least by changing his guess from Twister to White Prism, he acknowledged it implicitly.

It looks like that while old EJ might have aspirations to dictatorship, for now he's pretty much stuck in lousy middle management, with the power only to remove smutty pictures from posters he doesn't like.

White Prism is a pretty lousy guess too though, even if he is clearly resposible for some of the most Godawful alters round here. Not only does he lack the imagination to pull off 95% of your posts, but a lot of your posts are made around 4 AM GMT as far as I can tell. So if you were an alter, Shelle -- and I don't believe you are -- I don't think it's of anyone as stuck in GMT as Shite Prism is.

In reply to:

lousy moderator

Sadly, I agree. EJ was a very good moderator for a long time, but now he's admitted he's deleting people's posts with nothing to back it up beyond a non-existent slippery slope argument, I agree it's time for him to go.

Do the honourable thing EJ, and resign while we still have a bit of respect for you. In the old days when you came under attack, a lot of the big posters would defend you. I note they are now either silent or have joined your detractors. Think about that EJ.

Did you go running to Ohramona, telling her you needed help to crush the mob? It's more than a little suspicious that she should just pop up again now after a lengthy absence, just to defend her fellow mod.

And Ohramona, you should maybe think about handing in your Delete button too. Apart from the fact that you're hardly ever here, coming back just to insult people is hardly conduct befitting. Furthermore, one mod merely repeating the offensive behaviour of another mod doesn't not legitimise the first mod's actions. Far from it, it suggests it really is time for a new crew.

""Looking for love, not sex" -- the tagline of many a troll who doesn't believe they are worthy or capable of sex in its own right, but god, the thought of carrying that sort of middling self-esteem all the way to 36 is disturbing."

God you'd have loved WWII, EJ! Just imagine, all those Jews to push into gas chambers, and if they complained, you could just do that smug German thing you do so well: "There, there, it is just your ferocious expression of inferiority, subhuman Jew". And then you'd laugh, because you at least found it funny.

It's a shame you were born 50 years too late and you just have us to rub our noses in your shit.

In reply to:

There is no secret mod knowledge.

Clearly not. Your logic is not up to much either since you've had two guesses and you still haven't even hit the right time zone. Want to go again?

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

I really should have read your posts before I made my last two on this thread.

Oh well.

In reply to:

Ohramona, you should maybe think about handing in your Delete button too.

Yah! Get rid of all these tired old has beens. They're no fun any more, and they're no good any more. New TW order!

Adam can stay though. It's a shame he's currently touring the world trying to persuade TW hotties to meet him for assignations in London hotel bedrooms. I'm sure he'd keep the Nazi and his Hun in check. But who else we got: the Finn who never comes here any more, and some Brazilian chick who nobody still alive can ever remember ever coming here?

Sweep them all out, I say.

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

Alright, off the bat, I've got to give y'all some caveats: First, that I'm only involving myself in this fracas at the personal behest of one of TW's Finest, who it seems is eager to fathom just what it is yours truly thinks about this recurring Mod Stink.

Second, that I'm replying to you, Monkeyboy, because I appreciate the level of seriousness you bring to the discussion of ultimately trivial matters like the TW moderator debate. I know that sounds facetious, but I'm being genuine, and you're probably the only other poster involved who I can be sure isn't just "taking the piss."

So, my question is, what is it EJ's done that's "really, really bad?"

A few months back - and I'll wager several times before and since - you (Monkeyboy) lodged a valid complaint that without knowing the exact strictures of propriety around here, you shouldn't be blamed for posting pictures of dildos etc., as it was never explicitly stated that pictures of dildos etc. were contraband.

Doesn't the knife cut both ways, though? Assumedly, since none of us possess an outline of what's proper and improper, neither do EJ/Ohro/etc. So just as when you use your judgement when debating whether to post those pictures of preschool gang rapes, so, too, must EJ and the Gang use their personal judgement when deciding what to delete.

The sad fact is that when anything remotely controversial gets posted, half of TW will be clamoring for it to be taken down before their co-workers see it, the other half will be clamoring for it to be left up so their right to free posting isn't violated. The way I see it, if I were EJ, my only concern would be figuring out which way would get the least amount of shit thrown at me.

Now as is typical with me, I reserve the right to change my mind at the drop of a hat, but at the time being, I can't think of anything around TW which our Mods are failing to do which would make TW a better place if they did it. If EJ feels the need to snip a dildo here and there to stem the tide of prudish PMs in his inbox, I can't blame him.

As to whether new mods need to be elected/appointed/grown in vats, well, again, I'm not seeing this mounting tide of crap which a new group of mods will counteract; until such time, I feel that this election talk is exactly the sort of vanity contest we don't need.

because I appreciate the level of seriousness you bring to the discussion of ultimately trivial matters like the TW moderator debate.

Thank you.

Maybe I didn't make myself terribly clear. The offending behavior that I was alluding to was EJ's dismissal of any poster out of pure assumption that said poster is "just an alter." Especially since Shelle has faced doubt about whether she is an alter or not. I can see an equally strong argument for either scenario so I can't really fault anyone for taking either position, but in the end I just don't care either way.

But the point that I'm again failing to make is that it is poor argumentation skills to dismiss someone's very valid points because they are "just" anything. Add to that the profound inapropriateness of someone who is supposed to be a representative of this site behaving in such a way.

Sorry, I'm a bit out of it and fear I might be coming off as eloquently as JamieSim or some other house plant.

"Iím more real than you will ever be." - JamieSim on his...real...ness?

The offending behavior that I was alluding to was EJ's dismissal of any poster out of pure assumption that said poster is "just an alter." Especially since Shelle has faced doubt about whether she is an alter or not. I can see an equally strong argument for either scenario so I can't really fault anyone for taking either position, but in the end I just don't care either way.

Alright, I see what your issue is now, but I'm not sure what can be done about it. Without getting too heavily into who's real and who's not, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that within the last year or so, there has been a prevailing trend towards posters of debatable authenticity who specialize in baiting the regulars with varying degrees of success. "Varying" meaning that I get fooled into trying to have arguments with them all the time.

In reply to:

But the point that I'm again failing to make is that it is poor argumentation skills to dismiss someone's very valid points because they are "just" anything. Add to that the profound inapropriateness of someone who is supposed to be a representative of this site behaving in such a way.

From a purely subjective standpoint, I would have a much greater problem if EJ were to treat Robo and Dogz like you (and I) do, disregarding their attempts at complaining because they are "just idiots."

I don't know; I understand your point about accountability and about respecting people enough to answer their complaints, but I guess I'm equally sympathetic to EJ for not wanting to get mired down in an argument he's had several times before. Actually, that's my definition of good TW fun, so maybe I'm not so sympathetic.

Yeah, you know what? Fuck you, EJ.

Hop fences, jump over benchesWhen you see me coming get the fuck out the entrance

The fact is, I still think EJ's by far the best guy to moderate this forum. Out of anybody on here. Shit, he's being pretty much flying solo in that respect for a while now.

From a personal point of view, I don't really want to be in the computer lab when a picture of tubgirl pops up. Or one of a double-ended dildo. Or even one of JamieSim's posts. It seems prudish, it seems boring, it seems arbitary - facist is a bollocks word for it, Shelle, by the way - but it seems pretty necessary to me.

If I were the mod, what would I do? Delete them as soon as I saw them, probably PM whoever posted them and tell them to quit it, and then proceed to tell all and sundry what a pain in the arse the original poster was. That's why I'd be a shit mod. EJ, on the other hand, has argued the point in the forums a lot of times before and has done so without resorting to personal insults and other such simple tactics. That's what makes him a good mod.

Moreoever, he's an active contributor to the board and an intelligent guy. He certainly displays more of a rational logic than a number of the established posters who seem to offer very little other than mod-baiting. He's not alone in this - ohramona's an even-handed mod, and even Syisyo's been known to show reason - but he's the only mod who hasn't deserted the boards for a period.

I can see the argument for some new mods, but I can't see anybody who really fits the bill.

Shit, though...if the current mods really are as bad as we're told, why not just send the board to the dogs and appoint ddz and Jamie as the sole moderators. It might even be fun for a while.

...even Syisyo's been known to show reason - but he's the only mod who hasn't deserted the boards for a period.

Apart from Adam, who is admittedly on holiday, and Tati who has disappeared but is probably at this very moment down at Copacabana beach rubbing sun cream into her identical twin sister, so you'd have to forgive her.

The sad fact is that when anything remotely controversial gets posted, half of TW will be clamoring for it to be taken down before their co-workers see it,

I can't say I've noticed this half.

But even if they exist, I don't see why the dictates of their workplaces should limit the rest of us. At the risk of coming over all rich girl, if they're in the kind of workplace that doesn't want them looking at dildos, it's probably also the kind of workplace that doesn't want them talking about dildos. Or even talking about David Bowie. Or spending hours at any non work related website. They're already doing something their employers don't want them doing just by coming here.

Good luck to them, but if they're worried about suddenly being confronted with Tubgirl, they can just leave Monkeyboy's posts until they get home.

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

I don't know if this will get across to some but I'll try: There are complaints that I shouldn't be posting some things here and that I would be abusing an (by some) assumed higher position as being a mod. Quite the opposite I would argue. I more or less post in the same fashion as I have done before I got the mod job, some may remember. So if you don't like what I post, fine, I don't like every thing coming up here either. But don't confuse it with feeling bigger by being a mod, this is rather about not changing when becoming a mod. If you who criticise me here think I should have changed, fine, you may have a point. But that's a different discussion.

And Arlequino's words about deleting pics because they might cause trouble to the TWers who are not hidden in their bedroom when visiting this site cover about 99% of the motivation behind deletions I have done. And they also explain why tubgirl is still being a regular here, as now most people will be aware of Monkey's link to her home. But I am sure some will find that stupid again. Fuck you.

If you who criticise me here think I should have changed, fine, you may have a point.

This brings up another point that I have made before. The mods (whoever that is or will be) are stuck in an odd situation where they have to essentially stop being themselves and enjoying the boards on the same level as before in order to be seen as fair moderators. To clarify: let's say, for example that Tati (safe, because her hot ass is out of here) thinks that Jamie is a total nimrod and wants to say so - as a poster. If it should come time to initiate any official actions for or against that waste of molecules, her previous comments about him would, could, and - frankly - should be seen as a bias. This is the main reason why I think that the mods should be given arbitrary ID numbers as user names for the times that they are acting as mods. Only Adam and Evan would know who was who. This way, the mods (current and new) can have thier old user names back to do what they like with.

Of course it's flawed, but hopefully someone can take the spirit of it and come up with an improved idea.

In reply to:

Arlequino's words about deleting pics because they might cause trouble to the TWers who are not hidden in their bedroom when visiting this site cover about 99% of the motivation behind deletions I have done.

So then the people who have Internet access at home and/or have the self-discipline to not fill 8 hours of paid office time with visits to fansites are left pissing upwind? How about this: I don't feel that there should be any censorship because I don't access this site anywhere but in my own home. So who wins here? Who gets the special treatment? Do we abridge the free expression of the people who have home internet access and/or self-restraint or do we cater to the people who just can't keep from their TW fix for an entire work day?

"Iím more real than you will ever be." - JamieSim on his...real...ness?

You always put the tubgirl picture as a link, ok some people get caught out on it ten or twenty times, but if all pictures of a sexual or violent nature were put as links, it would give people the choice on whether they wanted to look at them.

I've supplied links to porn, even with ample warning for the deaf, dumb & blind here, and still the posts were deleted -- I think that's because the moderators feel as though they have to be seen as doing something, otherwise, what is their function exactly? Nothing, that's what - I'm looking at what their roles involve & I'm seeing Jack shit.

Ultimately, TW functioned perfectly well when solely, Adam, was overseer - I suppose the influx of moderators were a superfluous addition to watch the place whilst Adam went on his World Tour -- Well, I believe he's back soon and with due consideration I personally think normal transmission should be resumed by ridding the present mod's of their titles & leaving Adam as site administrator.

By the way the moderators were in place long before Adam went on his tour. Weren't they given powers because of Evan's absence and an increase in porn being posted at one time? Before my time at least.

Exactly, be yourself, but that doesn't mean running with the pack. What is so great about posting porn and pictures of dildos anyway. Surely people can have fun and not have to go down to the basest level? There has been loads of really funny threads on here, and also a load of interesting serious posts. If I want to look at a picture of a dildo there are literally millions of sites out there that could satisfy me, Teenage wildlife, does not have to be one of them.

I don't consider myself as running with pack, I've always been an individual and quite the loner.

In reply to:

What is so great about posting porn and pictures of dildos anyway.

I really don't know, I guess it's just the nature of TW.

In reply to:

Surely people can have fun and not have to go down to the basest level?

But the basest level whatever that is? Is all down to the individual and not up for discussion, If a member posts something I'm not keen on so be it, It really doesn't bother me, I couldn't care less what porn is posted! I have no interest in it per se

Look Alan you went to great lengths to explain to me the difference between posting on BWW as opposed to TW, just accept it that TW is different, I have.

And if there's spelling errors or grammatical errors in my post? tough

I am not comparing TW and BWW. People are complaining HERE about the moderators, but if people didn't try to push the standards then there would be no need for moderation. You don't need to just accept that something is rotten and give up, you can do something about it. Besides which, there isn't a real big problem of people posting porn on here, but when a picture does get deleted all the bleeding hearts come out about censorship and freedom of speech.

I was having a joke about the spelling in the other thread, is that worse than posting an obscene picture these days?

It is not a question of censorship, more to do with acting to type all the time.

Not following you here, Pablito. Are you saying it's okay to delete someone because they're predictable, rather than any other reason?

If that were the case, there are a lot of posters who would be getting their posts fiddled with by the Nazi ahead of Monkeyboy. When I click on the name of most people here, I already have a very good idea what they're going to say before I even read it. Whereas a Monkeyboy post, heck, you never really can be sure.

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

You're right. But there comes a point where repetition and cliche come back around to being funny again - because it's repetitive and cliche. For more on this, see "Side Show Bob, rake" and "Family Guy, chicken, monkey, asian reporter." I appreciate the sentiment, but just what kind of abject moron do you think I am if you don't think I'm fully aware of the fact that it's repetitive.

In reply to:

That is my argument, people just acting out characters

Which is fine, but it seems like you are arguing for the active censorship of said behavior. I could be wrong, but if not then it seems like a really bad idea you are entertaining.

"Iím more real than you will ever be." - JamieSim on his...real...ness?

Precisely Shelle, that for me is the big attraction the not quite knowing what to expect, I would soon become very bored with a site that became predictable and yet another prime example why I would like Monkeyboy to be a moderator.

The element of the unknown was my attraction towards Bowie and a fan site should have that same element.

What I meant, Shelle, and what I probably expressed badly, yet again, is that people seem to be posting things like pornography, or being deliberately abusive to people etc, because they seem to think it is expected of them. Some threads you can almost predict how they're going to turn out before they end.

Monkeyboy, yes, I can see what you are getting at, and can agree with you to a point.

I am not saying we should censor 'acting to type' I just think that it causes people to post things which most people would prefer not to see.

The main point though, is that here we are going around and around in circles, talking about the message board rather than using it. Is there anything more boring than that? I'm going to see if Claude is here and wind him up instead. I am really sick of board politics now.

people seem to be posting things like pornography, or being deliberately abusive to people etc, because they seem to think it is expected of them.

Maybe if everyone stopped talking about it like it's such a big deal it wouldn't be so funny to do.

I'm not saying that you have to like the stuff that we post, but you're taking a really shallow look at what our motivations are. Think about who you're dealing with and what you know about us. We aren't acting like 12 year olds because we think that it's inherently funny to do so.

"Iím more real than you will ever be." - JamieSim on his...real...ness?

Primarily, it's because I'm convinced she actually is an alter designed specifically to elicit the sort of response I'm about to give. Secondarily, it's because it really isn't my place to respond.

In reply to:

I can believe that. I mean, once a Jew-gassing asshole, always a Jew-gassing asshole.

What the fuck does that mean?

Honestly, to my eyes, that's more heinously offensive than a thousand tubgirl posts. So you disagree with some of the moderation here. So what? There's a bunch of posters here who have run foul of the moderators. There are yet more who have been targetted by posters who just thought it might be fun. Yet I've never known anything to complain so much and with so little cohesion and sensibility than you.

In all honestly, I'm yet to read a response from you that's had even the slightest semblance of wit or humour. Essentially, all you post is reactionary bollocks. If anybody wants that, they can just pick up a tabloid.

Honestly, to my eyes, that's more heinously offensive than a thousand tubgirl posts

Thank you. It was designed to offend.

You clearly haven't been paying attention so I'll recap for you.

EJNazi crossed a line when he dismissed me as an alter. Now, normally I have no problems with someone doing that. Truth be told, I quite enjoy the extra attention the whole "Is she or isn't she?" thing gets me. Better still, the important people, including me, know the truth. The slow learners or the ones who don't keep up don't.

So what's my problem with EJ claiming I'm an alter (first Twister, then White Prism)? Well, it's generally assumed that the mods have inside information. In fact, the Nazi bragged about it in the very same thread. So in essence it's the difference between someone spreading gossip to your neighbors ("Shelle's a spy!"), and someone in the CIA doing it. If someone in the CIA does it, you have to ask yourself why are they doing it (the answer in this case is simple: EJ can't counter my arguments so he prefers to dismiss them), and whether it's an abuse of power.

In reply to:

I'm yet to read a response from you that's had even the slightest semblance of wit or humour

Well, I haven't even noticed you until now, so my guess is we just don't have the same sense of humor. But if you could see my Inbox, you'd find there are plenty here who do find me amusing. Even many higher up the TW food chain than the Jew gasser.

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

Your justification there is: A German called me an alter, so I'm going to call him a Nazi-Holocaust sympathiser?

Sorry...that's just fucking ridiculous.

And assuming it isn't, and it's actually a point you've made within the boundaries of acceptable taste, to then follow it up with further references to "the Nazi", "EJNazi" and "the Jew gasser" seems pretty desperate.

In reply to:

Better still, the important people, including me, know the truth.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------...can't counter my arguments so he prefers to dismiss them

Isn't this just a case of using one argument to damn someone, and the same one to defend yourself? If you were really offended by EJ's assertion that you're an alter - and I don't, somehow, think you were - then why not just PM him; try and sort it out like someone with a modicum of intelligence? Why launch into an attack combining half-formed arguments with racist slander?

Having been here a good while, I've had run-ins with a number of posters. Difference is, though, I managed to sort mine. Are you incapable of doing the same?

In reply to:

if you could see my Inbox, you'd find there are plenty here who do find me amusing.

Primarily, it's because I'm convinced she actually is an alter designed specifically to elicit the sort of response I'm about to give. Secondarily, it's because it really isn't my place to respond.

You could have added "Thirdly, I'm about to criticise her for something I've admired or at least tolerated in others".

Shelle's not the first person to use the N word. She's not even the first to link it specificly to our once loved mod. White Prism and Monkeyboy were both doing it before her. Why didn't you start shrieking shrilly about it being heinously offensive when they did it?

You also wouldn't have to search too hard to find some pretty cutting insults from your great friend Twister. Don't get me wrong: this is no attack on Twister. I love that guy for his talent with an insult. But he does what Shelle just did here all the time. That's why EJ's first guess was that Shelle was a Twister alter.

My point is purely why do you admire it when your friends do it, and put up with it when someone you're scared of does it (you're far too scared of Monkeyboy to crititicise him, aren't you?), but then you come out of nowhere to criticise Shelle. Is it because she's a girl? Because she's new? Because she seems like an easy target?

In reply to:

I'm yet to read a response from you that's had even the slightest semblance of wit or humour

Hey, you're not exactly Mr. Chuckles now are you?

You're also doing Shelle a gross disservice. If you'd bothered to do even a bit of research rather than just barging in here half cocked, you'd have noticed that Shelle has created several of the most responded to and fun threads at TW in recent months. Even if all there was to her was the ability to insult with the greats, she'd still be a Hell of a poster. Fact is though, again, if you'd done your research, she never attacks anyone unprovoked. She never insults anyone who hasn't insulted her first. Once she does get insulted, sure, she ups the ante. My kind of girl.

You're a hypocrite Arlequino, but not to worry, there's lots of it around.

""Looking for love, not sex" -- the tagline of many a troll who doesn't believe they are worthy or capable of sex in its own right, but god, the thought of carrying that sort of middling self-esteem all the way to 36 is disturbing."

the answer in this case is simple: EJ can't counter my arguments so he prefers to dismiss them

In a nutshell. Standard TW behaviour of the self-proclaimed elite. As soon as you've started to lose the argument, pull out the "You're an alter" card and refuse to continue.

It's interesting that none of the serious questions you raised about how moderators are appointed (or might be removed), or what justifications there are for moderating some posts but not others, have been answered. Instead, they just focus on your insults: "Oh, that mean bitch just called lovely EJ a Nazi!"

That's the TW way I guess. And then they wonder why there are so many insults flying around. Why? Because they ignore the people who aren't part of their clique otherwise.

""Looking for love, not sex" -- the tagline of many a troll who doesn't believe they are worthy or capable of sex in its own right, but god, the thought of carrying that sort of middling self-esteem all the way to 36 is disturbing."

I think people take things to seriously here, we all know a joke that will offend and cause board outrage! It's all to easy, I tend now to read between the lines and find 99.9% of the humour very funny.

I just cannot believe the pious nature of some members, this is an internet fan site with a difference, except that or be damned.

Shelle's not the first person to use the N word. She's not even the first to link it specificly to our once loved mod. White Prism and Monkeyboy were both doing it before her. Why didn't you start shrieking shrilly about it being heinously offensive when they did it?

Arguing on a purely semantic level, you'll notice that my argument wasn't actually with the term 'Nazi' - though I then used that as an amplifier - but with the term "Jew gassing arsehole".

But something tells me this isn't actually an argument about semantics.

So - I've got to admit to a little bit of underinformed argument on my part here. I'm mostly unaware of the White Prism factor here. In fact, the only time I ever actually became aware of WP was in the musical discussion threads from a while back. That's not to say I didn't notice him because I didn't like or get him, or whatever. It's just that I truly wasn't aware of his presence. So, if WP is indeed guilty of throwing the term 'nazi' around, then it's not something I'd consider myself to have tolerated in any sense. I was just blissfully unaware.

As to the point on Monkeyboy, I think you're probably the one 'barging in half cocked'. I got into a bit of an argument with said Monkeyboy over this exact issue - and this same moderator - a few months back. The difference is, Monkeyboy didn't jump out with calls of "Jew gassing arsehole" or whatever. He began with a complaint about Free Speech, and moved from there on to insults. Thing is, Monkeyboy then sorted the argument in a sensible way. Not even just the insults, but the entire Free Speech debate. Where has Shelle even attempted to enter into serious debates?

Same goes for Twister. Hated the guy at first, but he doesn't just bandy insults around for the sheer hell of it. And when he does, they're usually less downright unpleasant. When they haven't been, I've had my say once or twice.

In reply to:

why do you admire it when your friends do it

Sorry, NomDePlume. You're an intelligent guy, but if you'd bothered to do even the most basic research you'd know I'm not into admiration for insults about Nazism, Holocaust or any such thing. Physical insults, attacks on posting style and other such stuff is well within the bounds. But not stuff like that.

In reply to:

Hey, you're not exactly Mr. Chuckles now are you?

Indeed. Never claimed to be, though. My posting strengths are listing threads and talking about drinking. Shit, if I could create something half as funny as Persilot, half as intelligent as Dara or half as knowledgeable as Twister I'd consider myself a good poster. As it is, I don't. But I also know when somebody else is pretty unentertaining.

And sure - I am a hypocrite. But tell me one single poster here who couldn't be accused of that. I think you'd struggle. I know I would.

Anyway - you make some interesting points, and being opinions, they're at least as valid as those that I've put forth. But I'm not going to change my mind about what Shelle said simply because I'm the only person that finds it insulting enough to make mention of.

Look back up this thread to the first exchange between Shelle and EJ. Twister summed it up perfectly as:

Shelle: This action may be mis-read as smug moderator wankery.EJ: Well, that's not what it is. *I* know what it is. But I'm not going to share the information. Because I'm a smug, moderator, wanker.

Also, if you look at the "Replace Sysiyo" thread, you'll see that Shelle entered the discussion, admittedly in her usual humorous style, but nevertheless with a serious point (that any new mod should be a woman to redress the gender imbalance), and specific (and I thought good) suggestions of who might make good mods.

You, on the other hand, just barged into the middle of this discussion with apparently nothing more to say than "It's wrong to call people Nazis".

Also, if you took your head out of your music threads for a minute and looked at Shelle's posts in the Coffee Shop, you'll find examples where she's made serious points in political discussions (about Miers most recently), sociology, sports, and racism. I'd link to them but I couldn't really be bothered since it's your ignorance, not mine. But the posts are there, believe me.

In reply to:

Same goes for Twister. Hated the guy at first

Maybe you just need to study Shelle's track record a bit more. Maybe you'll grow to love her as you have done Twister and Monkeyboy.

Anyway, thanks for the serious response, and for giving serious consideration to the points I made.

""Looking for love, not sex" -- the tagline of many a troll who doesn't believe they are worthy or capable of sex in its own right, but god, the thought of carrying that sort of middling self-esteem all the way to 36 is disturbing."

Perhaps it's a little unecessary for me to continue this in the forum, but I still feel a little misconstrued.

In reply to:

You, on the other hand, just barged into the middle of this discussion with apparently nothing more to say than "It's wrong to call people Nazis"

Not quite. Admittedly, said argument did form a large part of my post, and it was probably the crux of what I had to say. Nevertheless, I was also making a point about my thoughts on the moderation of this forum. Previously, I've said that I don't think we need new mods. In this thread, however, I did state that I can see sensibilities in the call for new - or simply more - moderators. I don't really think we need them, and it's not an argument I subscribe to, but the people that do put forward the claims for it make some valid points.

I admit, I probably wouldn't have entered the discussion if it weren't for the comments made about EJ, but it's not because I don't have an opinion. It's simply because I've expressed it enough times previously for it not to be worth repeating.

In reply to:

Shelle's Coffee Shop Posts

Some interesting posts she makes there, I agree. Unfortunately for me, despite the fact that I have a general interest in most topical - and utterly nonsensical - affairs, I'm yet to find more than about half a dozen posts of hers that I've really though 'wow...that was good'. That doesn't make her a bad poster and equally, it doesn't make me an ignorant one; it just means that our styles aren't compatible. That's not why I'm getting onto her here, though. The point here is that there are good ways to present an argument, and not so good ones. EJ's probably wasn't so good, mine hasn't been so good, and Shelle's was downright terrible.

Perhaps you're right, though. I may grow to like Shelle, enjoy her posts and be able to contribute to her discussions in such a way that doesn't make it appear as if I'm being argumentative for the sheer hell of it.

It's interesting that none of the serious questions you raised about how moderators are appointed (or might be removed), or what justifications there are for moderating some posts but not others, have been answered.

Actually, it's not really all that interesting. Like it or not, posters under suspicion of being alter egos are never, ever, ever going to be treated with the same regard as certifiably "real" posters. That doesn't mean that a Nobel laureate like yourself might not have some good points, but as long as that profile is hidden, a good chunk of the population is going to take everything you say with a whole salt flat, when they don't outright ignore you.

I can see how this double standard, especially employed by a moderator, could strike some as unfair. But each of us decides how seriously to take the other posters here - if it were Giulia or DeClaude starting threads about moderator change and EJ ignored them, I doubt there'd be this much fracas. And why not?

Hop fences, jump over benchesWhen you see me coming get the fuck out the entrance

You may not be liking me much, but I'm at last warming to you a little. You have shown yourself willing to at least discuss the serious points raised, rather than retreating behind the "You're an alter" wall of smugness.

So I'll attempt to explain my position a bit better. I'll also try to refrain from calling you an afternoon-tea sippin' gnomefucker, or any other such racist epithets.

My original interest in this whole moderator debate came down to two basic points: I support Freedom of Speech, and if there must be moderators, I think we could have better ones. Given that I haven't been here very long I lack the background to make long detailed posts on who would make a good moderator. But I still have an opinion, and thought it worth expressing.

On the Freedom Of Speech issue, Monkeyboy made all the points I would make, probably better than I could. So my initial posts were just pretty much "what he said". I had nothing to add to the substantive argument. Similarly, when EJ offered a slippery slope defense of why he was deleting very mild stuff, Twister and others beat me to the punch with well reasoned dismissals of this. So, not much for me to say other than "Yah, that's a bullshit argument". I'd have been happy to leave it at that if EJ hadn't decided he wasn't going to answer the points made (by others, not by me) because he thought I was Twister, or Whitre Prism, or whoever.

On my general posting style, I don't come here to prove how clever I am, or to discuss at great length my favorite albums. I come to have a bit of fun and chat. I prefer when that takes the form of friendly banter, as it generally did in my first few weeks here. Things changed when a select few who clearly didn't like my posting style to begin with started this whole "She's an alter" shit. That, apparently, is TW code for "Don't talk to her". Then the insults started flowing. Well, if you insult me, I insult back. And I see no reason why I need to stick to your standards of what's PC or not. My attitude is, if you dish it out, you better be prepared to take it back.

I can have fun either way. Either by chatting and bantering with the people who get my posting style, or by insulting those who insist on insulting it. Like NomDePlume said, I never start a fight.

I know my humor offends a lot of people. So be it. The world would be a dull place if we never did anything that might offend someone somewhere. As I see it, my only real responsibility here is to have fun. And if there are others who have fun with me, so much the better.

In reply to:

The point here is that there are good ways to present an argument, and not so good ones. EJ's probably wasn't so good, mine hasn't been so good, and Shelle's was downright terrible.

Maybe. In my defense, I only started insulting EJ personally once he made it clear he wasn't going to continue any argument with me because he thought I was an alter. Even a bad argument is better than none at all.

Shock tactics can be very effective when one side retreats to smug superiority and refuses to continue the argument seriously. Won't argue with me? Cover your ears and go "La la la, I'm not listening"? OK, let's see how thick skinned you are when I start throwing insults your way. If you can take it, fine. But you better be prepared to take it for as long as you refuse to treat me seriously.

I know it's obnoxious, but I reserve the right to be obnoxious to people who are obnoxious to me first.

As to why I didn't PM EJ and try and sort it out privately, well, I didn't see why I should. He made the accusation in public, from a position of accepted authority. As I see it, the onus is on him to either prove his allegation, or withdraw it. If he were someone I had interacted with a lot, like, say, Pablo, I might have cut him some slack. But EJ is someone I never even noticed until he started deleting other people's posts.

There seems to be an assumption that somehow a relatively new person like me should toe the line and behave to higher standards than well established posters, and even moderators. I suggest it would be better the other way round. Maybe if you cut the newbies more slack, they might calm down once they got used to the place, and more of them might stay. Maybe if more of you gave a good example of "civilized" behavior (and this is a general you: you in particular are setting a good example), newbies might settle down faster.

Maybe though, that's exactly what you don't want. New people breaking up your rather cosy Old Boys Club here.

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

if it were Giulia or DeClaude starting threads about moderator change and EJ ignored them, I doubt there'd be this much fracas. And why not?

Fair point but I didn't start any such thread, I was merely a minor contributor until EJ decided to shove me center stage. I'm not sure why he did that, but I suspect it was because he was losing the Freedom of Speech argument to Twister, Monkeyboy and others, and saw the "She's an alter" thing as a diversionary tactic. Perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut. Or perhaps not: at least EJ got exposed as someone who'd rather make baseless accusations and insinuations than admit he might have made a small mistake.

The other point is that it seems to me that every new person who makes a big splash gets this "You're an alter" thing thrown at them. In the short time I've been here, I've seen B mardle, JamieSim, and FastChanges get it.

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

The other point is that it seems to me that every new person who makes a big splash gets this "You're an alter" thing thrown at them. In the short time I've been here, I've seen B mardle, JamieSim, and FastChanges get it.

It's true, and quite unfortunate for those non-alter newbies who get accused of it, but that's the prevalent environment of TW these days.

At the risk of sounding a little too Pablo, it's not really a joke I find to be that hilarious/clever/what have you, but such is life on the internet. Some people clearly prefer an atmosphere of paranoia to one of transparency, and they're well within their rights to do what they like, so I'm not trying to start beef about it.

Hop fences, jump over benchesWhen you see me coming get the fuck out the entrance

I think it is the nature of the place really. The structure of the board enables people to multi-register very easily and there is no way that people can find out for certain who is real and who is an alter. Alter egos fall pretty much into three categories;

The clone; DeClaude, Dimmingdogz74, Fastchanges. These are easy to spot (with a keen eye in some cases) and are to parody the original poster in question.

The Character; The Pope, Vic Reeves, Sailor. These can give the board colour, the person behind them wants to make a joke or point and falls into the character of the well known person to do it. Obvious as alter egos and if well done very funny.

Then the third type, the agent provocateur. Usually out to cause trouble, to start fights, to speak the mind of the poster, without the consequences of saying it as themselves. This is the type of poster who can be confused with a newbie finding their way around board politics, or of someone who honestly just speaks their own mind without caring about the consequences. This is the group where people like Shelle, Jamie and Fastchanges can be erroneously labelled with. Because IP addresses are not shown next to the persons' name there is now way of showing that someone has more than one alter.

I do think that once a username has been around for long enought it is usually safe to say whether they are someone's alter or not. There is not enough time in the day to continually jump between personas regularly all day, so I would concur that Shelle and Fastchanges, (being the two newer members who have made a huge impression on the board lately) are real people.

I think it can be quite fun to see who are real and who aren't but I always try and give people the benefit of the doubt. However, when someone registers and immediatly hides their profile, I do automatically think alter-ego.

Also I don't really care if someone is real, or an alter, as long as it is entertaining.

Then the third type, the agent provocateur. Usually out to cause trouble, to start fights, to speak the mind of the poster, without the consequences of saying it as themselves. This is the type of poster who can be confused with a newbie finding their way around board politics, or of someone who honestly just speaks their own mind without caring about the consequences.

And heaven forbid that someone be able to speak their minds or, lordy lord, present an opinion that might not even be their own but still [gasp] makes people think!

This is again following that dumb assumption that there are dark forces out there just waiting to feast on the blood of the well-meaning townfolk of Teenage Wildlife. If this is actually the case, and trust me on this, the strong paranoia felt around here only feeds it. Alter Hunting has become a lot of people's favorite sport and I just don't see the point.

Let's take a couple examples:Shelle, for all we know, actually is an alter (since nobody can prove they are "real") but has brought up some very interesting points both here and in other forums. But what does it matter to the intelligent person if 100% of her posts are posted purely for the purpose of starting an argument? If an argument ensues, that's because there is an issue to argue about. So be it. I say thank you, kind alter.

Now let's say that Jamie is a real person and that 100% of what he offers is absolutely genuine yet it contributes so little thought to the boards that it actually sucks meaning from other posts. Is this any better than my previous example? Why? Because you'd rather have an illiterate retard who is a "real person" drool all over the boards than have a "fake person" add something interesting, even if totally insincere?

Now let's assume that there are dark forces out to wreak havok on the boards. What would the motivation for this be? Money? World domination? I'd say that it's probably more like what we did at APFLAN: some pranksters out to cause a panic. Think about those days back at that dump. What motivated us? What made us continue to go back and enrage people? Well, I'll assume that you are smart enough to put the pieces together. If there is some evil plot to destroy this message board, the alter hunting and paranoia that you think will keep them at bay is in fact feeding their motivation to continue thier dark, sinister plot to EAT YOUR SOUL!!

So in the end I think that the whole alter hunting passtime is fine for some people I know who just like to keep track of who's who as one would keep track of batting records. But when it becomes a guiding force in how you navigate the boards and what is actually said by whom, you are engaging in behavior that could possibly filter out 1 or 2 "bad guys" but you have alienated many more people and missed out on countless enjoyable and interesting moments because, to put it in terms that clearly state where I stand on this, "they hate our freedom." I generally assume that everyone is "real" because unless we are going to start having picnics or fucking eachother all that really matters in a setting like this are the ideas offered, not the person offering them. And think about it: assuming that even Guilia and SaiIor are real - within one's ability to do so, that is.

In the rare case that someone is trying to "do bad," I think we are smart enough to figure out who is doing that in time. And once we have, it's terribly fun to sit back and watch those who aren't smart enough walk repeatedly into the trap.

Relax, have fun, enjoy the (sometimes bumpy) ride. You'll be had sometimes, but that's a part of the TW experience. After all, we aren't exactly curing cancer here.

"Iím more real than you will ever be." - JamieSim on his...real...ness?

Do you know what Monkeyboy, I think you have totally misread that last post. I was just stating why some people would confuse the writing style of people like Shelle with an alter ego. I was not on about a big conspiracy or anything. Sometimes you really do protest too much.

If you read my post I did actutally say that I don't care whether a poster is real or not as long as they're entertaining, and the last couple of weeks I have actually found TW quite entertaning (although a little slow on times).

Pass on the picnics, and one thing I've quickly come to the conclusion is that the number of genuinely fuckable guys here I could number on the fingers of one hand. Or maybe even on the fingers of one finger.

So yah, what you said, and let's just say my girlhood dreams of wild gangbangs with crazy Bowie fans will never be fulfilled with this cast of actors.

When this whole "You're an alter" thing started, I realy didn't understand what it meant. It's not like everyone here posts their home address and phone number anyway.

Isn't one of the points on the Internet supposed to be that anonymity and the separation from the physical allows us to say what we might normally be afraid to say, and go into those parts of our psyches we otherwise wouldn't be able to rectally probe?

That's got to be more interesting than meeting a bunch of misanthropes in a bar in London and going to see a crap tribute band. Unless you really have no social life or something.

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

Thing is: I haven't. And I said so fairly early in this discussion. If you don't believe me, fine, but repeating the error doesn't make it more correct.

In reply to:

NdP: That's why EJ's first guess was that Shelle was a Twister alter.

You may not like my posts but still you should read them before attacking. I said above why I used that tw abbreviation in that post.

A liitle more accuracy would be welcome in this discussion.

And on a more general note: There is no consensus on what is right and what is wrong here at TW. How could there be and why should there. And so there will never be an agreement on what has to be done or not in controversial situations or even on the idea what is controversial and what's not. We have been there before. It's the nature of the beast. And noone will change that. Neither way.

And finally thanks to everyone who dropped a line to cheer me up on the Nazi-insults that are being dished out here. I am quite easy on that. It's rather disappointing though, how simple some brains in the modern world still work when it comes to the subject.

You may not like my posts but still you should read them before attacking. I said above why I used that tw abbreviation in that post.

I did, and you did, but we both know you were lying after the event.

In reply to:

A liitle more accuracy would be welcome in this discussion.

A little more honesty would be welcome too. You never seem to explain yourself until after you've caused an uproar, and there's no consistency to your positions, as you admitted yourself.

You have no business being a mod any more. None.

""Looking for love, not sex" -- the tagline of many a troll who doesn't believe they are worthy or capable of sex in its own right, but god, the thought of carrying that sort of middling self-esteem all the way to 36 is disturbing."

There is no consensus on what is right and what is wrong here at TW. How could there be and why should there. And so there will never be an agreement on what has to be done or not in controversial situations or even on the idea what is controversial and what's not. We have been there before. It's the nature of the beast. And noone will change that. Neither way.

If this is a justification for the kind of arbitrary moderating you've been indulging in of late, it's a particularly poor one.

I also don't see why there shouldn't at least be formal guidelines as to what does and doesn't get deleted. Otherwise, you can justify deleting absolutely anything, without discussion. I don't think many people other than you actually want that.

Maybe you should take the fact that "We have been there before" and yet it comes up again and again as a sign that it's an unresolved issue.

In reply to:

And finally thanks to everyone who dropped a line to cheer me up on the Nazi-insults that are being dished out here. I am quite easy on that. It's rather disappointing though, how simple some brains in the modern world still work when it comes to the subject.

If you behave like a total fascist, as you have, then you might not like the Nazi comparison but you're going to have to live with the fact that it's a valid one to make. The fact that you're German? Well, I'd have thought you'd have made more of an effort not to appear like a total fascist.

You're a small man, EJSunday. Too small even for the limited power you've been given here.

Now I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, because I have a life and TW represents just a tiny part of a small part of that life. But as long as TW retains my interest and as long as you retain the power to delete and edit the posts of more interesting and intelligent posters than yourself, then I'm going to continue to do what I can to make my disapproval of you clear, and to try to convince others that you should have no power.

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

Not quite the same thing as "I have no inside information". It seems you're no longer content with fucking with other people's posts: you now want to reword your own retrospectively.

Now, are you going to answer the other points, or are you simply unable to? You talk about serious arguments, but it seems you don't really want to argue unless there's a cheap point or a false accusation you think you could make.

Actually, I just realized it's pretty pointless arguing with you. It's a bit like arguing with the busboy over the meal the chef cooked.

It's your bosses I really should be talking to.

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

Not quite the same thing as "I have no inside information". It seems you're no longer content with fucking with other people's posts: you now want to reword your own retrospectively.

Hm, who is rewording here and where exactly is the difference between "I have no inside information" and "There is no secret mod knowledge" in the context of what was said before in the thread. This is from your very own post to which I answered directly:(quote Shelle): "Or at the very least admit that your wild guess that I am someone beginning with tw is just that: a wild guess, not based on any secret mod knowledge."

You must be thrilled, too, that people are sticking to these little side quarrels that you keep creating instead of focusing on what the real problem is.

No. I am simply trying to point out that I already addressed the accusations early on but that some here simply ignore that and prefer to keep raving - and even dismiss their own content and terminology when it is used by me. If you think that's cool and clever, keep going. I don't.

where exactly is the difference between "I have no inside information" and "There is no secret mod knowledge"

Do I have to spell it out? It looks like I do.

"There is no secret mod knowledge" is different from "I have no inside information". For example, and this is just one example, you could have inside information that you received from Adam. We now know you can't see IP addresses, but Adam clearly can. It wouldn't test imagination to think that Adam might pass these on to mods who suspected certain people of being other people.

You chose to reveal "There is no secret mod knowledge" only after you'd made it obvious anyway by changing your guess. But you did not say "I have no inside information".

I know it's a minor point, but you only seem interested in contesting the minor unimportant points, or the personal insults. When it comes to the more important points, you are unable or unwilling to discuss or clarify, it seems. Why don't you want to talk about the suggestion that you mods be subject to formal guidelines? Or answer the points of discussion raised in this post?

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

And how could she do anything but, when you insist on referencing only to the most relatively feeble threads in this woolly drama? Why if you reply to this post it will only be to dismiss my ability to conjure up dramatic metaphors...

Point is you try to discredit those who wish to seek you out in debate by leaping on the tiniest inconsistencies that trickle out over the course of days, groundless claims that people aren't even 'real' before finally pleading for sympathy as some kind of 'victim'. Let's re-address two of the myriad of good, reasonable points that you didn't acknowledge:

(1) Shelle: "I also don't see why there shouldn't at least be formal guidelines as to what does and doesn't get deleted. Otherwise, you can justify deleting absolutely anything, without discussion".

How about it, EJSunday? Next time you're feeling a little snippy-happy you could open a thread here in Feedback to see exactly how people would actually feel about it? If discussion ensues and a consensus is reached, you'd probably never even have to snip a thing, due to one's wonderous ability to self-censor. If a very real, vocal majority found Monkeyboy's beloved 'tubgirl' too much for this site - even behind a link - I don't really think he'd keep posting it.

But I use tubgirl just as an example, you understand.

(2) Monkeyboy: "Sounds to me like a slightly cleaned-up version of "I'm the moderator and you aren't so fuck you" argument".

He has a point, Mr. Sunday. You say there's no way everyone will agree on issues of censorship - end of discussion. Ergo, your word is law? The discussion is over? And then you're gonna have a little cry about it if someone makes the leap from your my-way-goes logic to fascism?

EJ, it has become clear to me that you are either unwilling or unable to engage in a mature debate about the real issues addressed here. I have given you ample benefit of the doubt but now I have no coice but to stop doing so.

You are avoiding the argument while resorting to cheap red herring and ad hominem attacks as "reasons" to do so. I don't know if you are retarded enough to fall for such crap - maybe you really are so easily distracted by "shiny" things that you can't focus on the issues that have been clearly laid out multiple times in this thread. But I don't think that is the case. I think that you are just a really immature little man who has tasted the sweeet nectar of power in an otherwise unimportant life (on a David Bowie fansite, mind you) and who sees it coming to an end and is starting to panic because mom might hear you cry in the basement and then she'll get the hose out.

At least that is how you are coming across so far in this argument. If you should wish to alter this impression you could always, I don't know, grow the fuck up. Fucking pathetic. Ddgz would at least pretend to listen.

Otherwise, keep up the good work. I hear that the goosestep is a good ab workout. You'll put Brad Pitt to shame in no time.

"Iím more real than you will ever be." - JamieSim on his...real...ness?

- Did I say that Shelle is twisters alter? Apparently I did but not on purpose. I tried to put the matter right when I wrote that I chose the "tw" hint as a link to Shelle's post in that other thread where twister attacked me and Shelle jumped the band wagon. That correction was being ignored as it obviously didn't fit some people's ideas.

- Inside Information vs. Secret Mod KnowledgeMaybe my English isn't good enough but this is still the same to me in the context of this discussion. And you could have understood what I meant even if you think I was not being precise. Strangely enough you didn't accept my expression for what was in the centre oft the debate while it was exactly the same terminology Shelle had used to accuse me. If you call that splitting hair and an attempt to avoid the central point of the discussion I say you are avoiding to accept that I had already cleard that point which in fact made vast parts of the latter controversy superfluous.

- Is EJ allowed to behave as others do here?You say no, I say yes. I am pretty much the same poster here as I was before I got the mod job, at least that's what I think. So the argument that I was after something here because I am a mod doesn't really hold water as the things I am being accused of here were also part of my character as a poster when I joined this side. Your point that someone like me shouldn't be moderating here is understood, but again, that discussion is different from EJ has turned into an asshole since he's been moderating.

- The bad things I have done as a moderatorI supported the temporary ban on dd74 wich I still think right. Apart from that I deleted a few pics (about 10, I'd guess) over the months (or has it been years?). If every deletion was necessary is obviously debatable, Marquis has said a few good words about that further up this thread, and that's why I said that this problem will never be solved as there is no consensus. None of the deletions was accompanied by any "threats of exercised mod power" like "if you do that again I'll ban you" or whatever. Of course not.

I am sure this post will not satisfy your lust for mod hunting but that's all that I can say. Limited as I am.

You'll find all of them in my previous posts here and in some other threads where you brought this matter up. It was just a summary of what I said before so forget about the "at least" bit. If you had made a little more effort you could have halved your engagement in this thread. At least.

Here's the big point that you aren't getting: a moderator should behave in a somewhat professional manner. You, jackass, do not. You have before, yes. Actually, I have found your style of moderation to be very even-handed and relatively fair. But someone who posesses any percieved authority should be held to a higher standard of discourse than "I'm not going to listen to you because you're an alter lalalalalalala."

I've also said, with you in mind, that the moderators are put in an unfair position by having their username associated with both their unofficial and official activites. As far as I'm concerned, you (by you I mean "you moderator types") are forced to sacrifice either your personality or your moderator responsibilities in order to do the other. It's a no-win situation. That's why I think that there should be a way to keep them separate. Surely, this wouldn't be too hard. If you need me to exlpain how to create a new and unique username, feel free to PM me. I've done it a few times before, if you haven't heard.

But my sympathy for your plight in dealing with that particular double-edged sword doesn't trump my ideal of moderators who can behave like responsible adults. Sorry, really, I am, but if you aren't familiar with my habit of sticking to my principles at most any cost than I'd like to also show you this picture of my girlfriend in a bathtub.

To make my point even more clear, I don't care how other people here choose to treat other people - for the most part, at least. But when an insult or an act of open and unwarranted dismissal is carried out with an offical voice I find it highly inapropriate and abusive. The lines are thin with me, I admit, but they are definate and important.

And all of this could have been avoided if only you had apologised. Maybe you're just one of those types of guys who thinks that you'll get bent over and fucked up the butt the very moment that you admit fault. Maybe it's a German thing (and that isn't a Nazi joke), I really don't know. My suspicion, though, is that you know that what you did was wrong but can't bring yourself to admit it. Unless you really are retarded, which I doubt. Regardless, none of these are good traits for a person of authority to have. See George W. Bush for more on this. You and Bush would be doing yourselves and us a favor if you were to admit that perhaps you aren't good choices for your respective jobs. There's no fault in that. Not everyone is perfect for every job.

For the record: if you choose to dismiss someone's opinion because you think they are an alter, you don't have to announce it publicly.

Here's the big point that you aren't getting: a moderator should behave in a somewhat professional manner. You, jackass, do not.

You are still not reading my posts it seems. Of course I have got that point and have admitted to it more than once, the last time in my "summary" post. And yes, I disagree with you on that. When I post an opinion it is my opinion, just like evrybody else does. And I well think I am entitled to do so just like anybody else. And then we can fight about opinions if you like. I have never posted anything here as a moderator which I wouldn't have posted as the ErichJohann who once joined this site. All I have ever done as a moderator is the afore mentioned deletions, a few threads have been moved to a different forum and I have tried to reply to problems or ideas which people wrote about in pms.

What I find most interesting is that it is people like you who like to stick their necks out here who complain about an assumed domination by a moderator. Seems a little like this is again the old story in which those who normally hit the hardest cry the loudest when they feel someone's disagreeing with them whom they cannot simply shout down. But that's just a guess.

No, you are still missing part two to my argument: it is impossible to keep your personality and opinions intact (which, of course, you are entitled to) and to appear objective or professional when it comes time to. You are not in a position to agree or disagree with this statement because you have no idea how you appear to us.

In reply to:

What I find most interesting is that it is people like you who like to stick their necks out here who complain about an assumed domination by a moderator.

What exactly is a "person like me," EJ? And my complaint isn't that I actually am being dominated by a moderator, it's that I think the moderator believes themselves to be in a dominant position. The fact that you are usually benevolent with your powers has nothing to do with how you casually dismiss the opinions of the underlings. This is especially easy for you to do when the underling in question is the guy who posts tubgirl links and has creepy obsessions with asian chicks. But in order to dismiss me on those grounds you would also have to ignore the fact that I am able to create way bigger waves here than I have so far in this debate and that if you don't start treating "people like me" like "people with something worthwhile to say" you will drown, EJ. Quickly. I prefer to stay modest but you and I both know that I shit bigger than you.

In reply to:

Seems a little like this is again the old story in which those who normally hit the hardest cry the loudest when they feel someone's disagreeing with them whom they cannot simply shout down.

Again with the condescending attitude. Well, this could also be the same old story in which those who refuse introspection or objectivity, those who feel that they are inherently "right" for one reason or another (ubermunchy! ), dismiss those who are trying to shout through their fog of utter ignorance and bullshit. Only time will tell.

I tend to think that I am speaking for many people on this moderator problem and that I am doing well enough at it that those people don't feel the need to chime in. Some people lack the ability or drive to do this, others, I'd imagine, don't want to risk what they see as a friendship - this is fine. I honestly don't know if that is the case and would appreciate a PM or two to let me know either way. Regardless, this is just the type of person I am. I see a wrong and I do the pitbull routine where I don't let go until it dies or gets out of my grip - whichever comes first. To those who find this trait annoying, you have my apologies but it isn't going to change.

What you are really failing to understand is that the entire course of this argument is, in fact, my very argument. The longer you refuse to take "people like me" seriously and treat our opinions with at least a small amount of respect, the longer you prove that I'm right when I say that you refuse to take "people like me" seriously and treat our opinions with at least a small amount of respect.

It's weird, really. I didn't think you were a bad moderator before, EJ, but this thread and your responses to it have indeed swayed me to that side. You seem not to realize that moderatorship is a responsibility, and that it does obligate you to a variety of actions.

Specifically, I agree with Monkeyboy that moderators need to be held to a higher standard than regular posters. Moderators do have power, and posters need to feel comfortable with them and to respect them. When you get into hissy fits, EJ, I cannot respect you. When you sulk and avoid answering genuine criticisms and accuse others of being alter egos, I do not feel comfortable with you as a mod.

As posters, we need to be assured that moderators will remain objective, and will not use their power for personal gain, or under the sway of personal prejudice. The only way a moderator can assure us of that is if he/she is always objective and moderate (ha!) in his/her actions on the board. You are not. Ohramona used to be, and now she's not. It worries me a bit. I no longer believe you to be above editing/deleting someone's post if it personally displeases you.

This is not fair to mods, I know. It--as Monkeyboy said--requires that they give up their personality. But anything else is not fair to the rest of the posters.

I've been a mod on other groups before. I make a very good mod, I like to think--I can pretty easily separate personal from professional, and I'm able to decide whether I think a poster is doing something acceptable or unacceptable regardless of what feelings I have towards that poster, or the material being posted. I can find something personally offensive, and yet not think that it ought to be supressed or deleted.

I quit being a mod, and I wouldn't want to be a mod again because it was exhausting. Because, even though I originally also thought I'd be able to maintain my personality and still be a fair moderator, I quickly saw that it wasn't so. In order to feel that I was not privileging anyone, and to have everybody feel comfortable with me, I had to whitewash my posts, not participate in as many arguments, not insult any other posters, etc. It's not a choice, it's what one has to do.

As such, I think it may be best if the following model were adopted:

a) We had a set of clear rules regarding moderation.b) there were new usernames created for moderators.c) moderators could be cycled through the usernames occasionally. (Ie, Adam could know all the moderator usernames' passwords, and when a moderator stopped being active, he could change the password and pass on the account to someone else.)

The only way a moderator can assure us of that is if he/she is always objective and moderate (ha!) in his/her actions on the board. You are not. Ohramona used to be, and now she's not. It worries me a bit.

In reply to:

I had to whitewash my posts, not participate in as many arguments, not insult any other posters, etc. It's not a choice, it's what one has to do.

I don't choose to hang out where I can't say what I want, and if that includes crticisms of posters, so be it. Although I think I've remained nearly as innocuous as I was when I started modding.

Although I think I've remained nearly as innocuous as I was when I started modding.

Yep--and mayhap more so than before you started modding. I do remember thinking, when the mods were nominated, "aww, but that'll make some of my favorite posters have to leash themselves in!"

Which is a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" kinda thing, since when people don't leash themselves in, a la EJ, that bothers me too.

Ergo my suggestion.

But I do think that acting in a non-biased manner is part of the job of being a mod. If it is a choice, it's as much of one as, well, er, moderating the boards. That is to say, one goes with the other.

I agree with Monkeyboy that moderators need to be held to a higher standard than regular posters. Moderators do have power, and posters need to feel comfortable with them and to respect them

I agree with this. I believe this was a big reason why the current moderators were chosen: all were people who did not get into nasty personal arguments.

It also explains why Adam is pretty much the God of moderation.

In reply to:

I no longer believe you to be above editing/deleting someone's post if it personally displeases you.

In fairness to EJSunday, as far as I'm aware he has managed to restrain himself from doing this, in the face of considerable provocation. A lesser man would have cracked and given into the temptation to abuse his position in an attempt to silence his critics.

In reply to:

I wouldn't want to be a mod again because it was exhausting

It's a tough job, and you need to be a certain type of person to do it well. I've always turned down the opportunity to become one, because I think it would suck much of the fun out of the board for me, and I have the innate Irish dislike of being seen as an authority figure.

I think the current mods have all done a very good job. I've disagreed with some of their decisions, but since I'm about as libertarian as it gets on freedom of speech issues and I'm never comfortable banning people, I'd probably disagree with any moderator's decisions. More importantly though, they've retained my respect as moderators because they have appeared by and large impartial and consistent.

That said, I think you can be a moderator for too long, and it can become a burden. Also, the longer you stay in office, the more like a totalitarian dictator you start to appear, regardless of how you behave. A regular turnover in the moderator positions would ensure that newer people in particular don't see the mods as a crusty old institution.

I think both EJ and Ohramona are no longer the posters they were when they were chosen for their roles. Not that they've become nastier or anything. In EJ's case, he seems less happy go lucky, which might have happened anyway, or might be down to the pressure of being called a Nazi at regular intervals and being forced to explain his actions. In Ohra's case, I really miss her from the boards, particularly the Ohra with whom I had discourses on the attractions of atheism (turns out we're not all dangerous psychos with no principles). Perhaps she'd have lost interest and drifted away anyway: most old timers feel the boards are not what they were. But perhaps being an authority figure is something of a straitjacket, and an Ohra relieved of her burden would be able to have more fun on the boards. And from a purely selfish point of view, I'd like EJSunday to have more time to explain the more important things in life to me, like how in God's name Werder Bremen managed to pick themselves up again after blowing a 3 goal lead and go on and win against Udinese.

In the past, I've been wary of changing mods due to a lack of good candidates willing to do the job, but it seems a good young crop of people willing to do the job has come through, so I think it's time for change.

My concrete suggestions are essentially the same as Starlite's:(1) Fixed terms (perhaps one year) for moderators, subject to availability of good alternatives(2) Stated guidelines for moderation. These can never be complete, but that's no reason to have nothing. There are certain things we can definitely rule out (kiddie porn, death threats, anything illegal). Mods will always have to have some executive discretion, but I think the existence of formal guidelines would stop a lot of arguments before they get started.(3) Special accounts for moderators. Only Adam need know who they are. This would allow posters who are moderators to clearly delineate between their actions as mods and their normal posting.

Slan libh,

Dara

"Ireland is a great country to go to if you think you're drinking too much. Because it turns out you're not even close"

The only way a moderator can assure us of that is if he/she is always objective and moderate (ha!) in his/her actions on the board. You are not. Ohramona used to be, and now she's not.

In the next, regarding me describing myself as innocuous, you say:

In reply to:

Yep--and mayhap more so than before you started modding. I do remember thinking, when the mods were nominated, "aww, but that'll make some of my favorite posters have to leash themselves in!"

So what is your complaint? I'm lacking in objectivity and moderation? I've "leashed" myself in too far? All of the above? I'm not sure how these two descriptions can both be accurate. Tell me. And if you could supply an example or two of where I've not been objective and/or moderate, I'd appreciate it.

I believe your post bears much to the significance as to why you were nominated TW Kingski -- Although I disagree that there should ever be more than one moderator, and that moderator should be Adam, up until the time he decides he no longer wants the position.

As someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about moderation (unless it comes down to potentially juicy bannings I must say that's just the most level headed thing anyone could say in a silly thread that went overboard a while ago. And no, EJ doesn't necessarily deserve all this crap. He can tell each and everyone of you to fuck yourself as long as this kind of healthy antagonism doesn't interfere with his "job" (which should be non existent to be honest).

Still Dara, there's one thing that bothers me:

In reply to:

death threats

Why are you trying to suck entertainment out of these boards!

I'm spellbound, but a woman divides And the hills are alive with celibate cries

Or maybe you, EJ and Ohramannish should crawl off into a hole together somewhere and leave the moderating to Adam. He's the only one that enjoys any popular support.

""Looking for love, not sex" -- the tagline of many a troll who doesn't believe they are worthy or capable of sex in its own right, but god, the thought of carrying that sort of middling self-esteem all the way to 36 is disturbing."

So what is your complaint? I'm lacking in objectivity and moderation? I've "leashed" myself in too far? All of the above?

Both, with the second one possible rather than definite. I think when you started as a mod, you (from what I remember) started out very... well... moderate. Trying to not take obvious sides in many disputes that could be problematic, conciliatory all around, etc. Then in later months, I've noticed that you haven't been as keen to follow the nicey-nicey-role.

However, since it's hard for anyone to follow the nicey-nicey role all the time, I'm thinking that I'm noticing this specifically because you're a mod. And that probably you're still more moderate than before you became one.

In reply to:

And if you could supply an example or two of where I've not been objective and/or moderate, I'd appreciate it.

This. That made me feel rather uncomfortable. It bothered me to see a mod be snarky to someone when that poster criticized how the board was run. There's more on that same thread. And there were one or two occasions previously, but I can't find 'em right now--one was to ddz, another... uh... don't remember.

I did say it doesn't happen very often.

Re: Dara

In reply to:

In fairness to EJSunday, as far as I'm aware he has managed to restrain himself from doing this, in the face of considerable provocation. A lesser man would have cracked and given into the temptation to abuse his position in an attempt to silence his critics.

Okay, yes, what I said was unfair of me. Let me put it this way: logically, I know this, and I guess I do believe that EJ has been pretty objective. But emotionally, due to all this frackas, I can no longer trust in it.

I'm still feeling a contradiction here. When you say (paraphrased) "lacking in objectivity and moderation", that says to me "be more moderate and neutral"; but when you say "leashed in too much", that says to me "be more spontaneous, edit/censor yourself less". So which do you want?

Oh, well then, I'm terribly sorry if I hurt your feelings by making a snarky comment to shelle. I can see how that comment would make you feel so much more uncomfortable than the comment of Shelle's:

In reply to:

Before, I was just offering some mild and I thought helpful criticism about how you might moderate less fractiously. Now I'm pretty much convinced you're just a lousy moderator, and a pathetic weasel of a human being.

If you want to dispel this mental image I have of you now, AdolfSunday, I suggest you apologize immediately.

that I was responding to! You don't think hir comment is a bit harsher? It is IMO. Oops! There I go with my opinion again! Sorry!

In reply to:

It bothered me to see a mod be snarky to someone when that poster criticized how the board was run.

The post I was respopnding to was more a criticism of EJ than it was of "how the board was run" now, wasn't it? I really don't give a flying rat's ass about criticisms of these boards. I'm for freedom of speech! I'm for freedom of expression. I'm glad everybody feels free to criticize. I have criticisms of these boards, too! It was the particular language and terms that shell used that spawned my comment. But I didn't go in and *moderate* her comment. I didn't even suggest that she tone down her language. I, in my way, expressed my opinion about the way s/he chose to express hirself. Plus, it was funny! You know: crabby women? Menstruation? Any of this sounding familiar to you? I'm not suppose to do this? I have to walk around like ... like ... well, read any 1984 lately?

In reply to:

I've noticed that you haven't been as keen to follow the nicey-nicey-role.

Well ...fucking barf in a handbag! I'm sorry, I must've missed the line for the little blue pills when they were handing out the moderators' badges! If this characteristic is required of the forum's moderators then I'm handing in my badge the moment Adam gets back! I only hope I can maintain my pinkness.

But you see, your subject line is exactly where it's at. I do agree with that. It's not fair, but I feel that's how it is.

In reply to:

So which do you want?

While you're a mod, I want choice A. Generally, I'm for choice B. I regret that being a mod, imo, requires choice A over choice B, but that doesn't mean I don't expect it.

In reply to:

You don't think hir comment is a bit harsher?

Of course it was. But this is where the higher standard for moderators that I was talking about earlier comes in.

And that comment does make me feel uncomfortable, because Shelle can say whatever she wants, but she has absolutely no power on these boards beyond that. You do. Mods are also supposed to be representative of the boards; attacking users in that light seems wrong to me.

Ohro, what you seem to be missing is that the very paradox that you seem to be presenting as an excuse is the same paradox that we are presenting as the crux of the problem. It is a no-win situation, not because of the people moderating but because of the way it is set up.

An important thing to understand is that this isn't a campaign to oust the mods as posters and to punish them for being horrible people - that's not the case at all. What all this really points to is that there is a problem with the system - and as much as you'd like to say that you can be objective about this, you are a part of that system. For you or any other mod to say that there isn't a problem is something like the chef telling a table of complaining customers that their meal was actually very delicious and that they are crazy for thinking otherwise.

If I'm wrong about that, not only will I retire the mod badge when Adam returns, I'll leave TW altogether.

Geez, don't be such a fucken drama queen!

Starlite is 100% right on this.

If you can't see the difference between

1) a powerless pion such as me getting frustrated and resorting to some below the belt insults after a mod has effectively said "I'm not talking to you because you are not important enough to deserve a serious response", and has made it clear he's also going to ignore all the serious points raised by other postersand2) someone in a position of authority suddenly landing in the middle of a serious discussion just to counterinsult someone who dared to pick on hir mod buddy

then you really have no business wearing pink and having that stoopid looking M next to your name.

If you were a nobody like me and made the comment, fair enough. I'd have been happy to either laugh it off or trade insults.

But when you march in here with your pink uniform and badge, it's different. You're effectively saying "If anyone has a beef with one moderator, you have a beef with us all". That's intimidating to anyone.

I understand that you mods all want to stick together. You should ask yourself though why it's just you lot sticking up for each other.

As far as I can see, you were retired from these boards before my little outburst of potty mouth sent your craven friend running to you for support.

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

Actually, all I've said is I'm not gonna hang out where I can't be me.

That's fine, I have no problem with that. But a moderator whould be held to a higher standard. Again, read what Starlite wrote, read what I wrote. It's been covered. This isn't an argument where we are saying that you, ohro, should be held to this standard but that the title of moderator has certain inherent responsibilities that come with it.

Let me take this in a different direction, just to clarify. If I bozo a moderator there is nothing wrong with it. However, because a moderator needs to be able to monitor everyone, if a moderator bozos me it is irresponsible. While this isn't a direct lead-in to how a moderator should treat other posters, not in the context previously offered, hopefully it does serve to show how moderators do (or should) operate under slightly altered rules.

Want another example? Alright. Say I work customer service for Target. John Q. Jackass walks in and starts acting like an idiot. No matter how badly I want to, I can't tell him to "fuck off" because if I do it gives the impression that Target is a hostile environment. If I were to see this same guy out in the street I could say whatever I wanted and I would just be an asshole.

How about another example: in the Tom DeLay trial, a judge was replaced because of his contributions to Democratic causes - which I think was right to do. Now the judge who had him replaced is being replaced because of his contributions to Republicans - which I also think was the right thing. Regardless of whether or not each judge's political beliefs did or would have motivated their decisions, the point is that the appearance of impartiality was tainted and any ruling could have been questioned on those grounds.

It seems that you want to believe that the moderator job shouldn't have a bearing on what you say and vice-versa. The point is that is does, if only in our interpretation of it.

leave the moderating to Adam. He's the only one that enjoys any popular support.

And the interesting this is, while he was the only mod, he got a lot of criticism. Then four other mods came along, and of those four I was the one getting most of the criticism (rightfully, I might add) while at the time EJ and Ohro were the popular ones. Apparently in my absence both EJ and Ohro are getting criticised while Adam has now inherited Evan's old mantle as the rightful Admin who wouldn't do anything wrong if he was here (but he isn't so we can't know for certain).

I'm not saying the points raised about the problems of the moderating system wouldn√§t be valid, but targeting the individual persons will do no good because mods have to make decisions that sometimes do not please everyone. Or they will say something that people will deem as being inappropriate for a mod. Because of those things anyone you might appoint as a mod will get a negative stamp on hir.

The current mods have made mistakes. People make mistakes, even those given a position of power. Personally from a quick glance around the forums I'd say EJ and Ohro have done a decent job in what they're supposed to do.

Just one more word from me: When Adam aked me if I was willing to do the mod job I answered that I surely was but only under the agreement that I do not have to change my style and habits here. I think I said something about myself like not being a moderate character or so. Adam's answer was that he knows that but that it is most important to not change when becoming a mod, I think what he meant was that people might be tempted to act like they think mods should and would move away from their normal behaviour which obviously was the reason why Adam (in debate with some otheres here) chose the current mods.

And from the first day on I stuck to that agreement. Easily. Not much mod work to do anyway, apart from the tough dd74 affair, and otherwise engaging in the communication here just like anybody else. And I still think that this was absolutely right.

I would support the critical views if I had ever used any alledged mod power (banning, deleting) to support my views or to win in a discussion - but that I have never done. All other claims are simple lies. If some here feel surpressed in an exchange with me only because there is the mod sign next to my username I understand that but do not think it is my fault. I do not believe in authority by titles - and I am surprised how many here do.

edit: Regardless of me being the target I find some of Mokeyboy's and Shelle's words in this thread the worst I have ever come across on this site. And still they claim moral superiority for themselves and a better style from me. Doesen't make much sense to me. So why eaxctly do people here get away with permanent Nazi insults while others are not allowed to post differing opinions without even using swear words? Ah, I forgot, the mod sign makes free speech less tolerabel than the swastika.

In reply to:

And from a purely selfish point of view, I'd like EJSunday to have more time to explain the more important things in life to me, like how in God's name Werder Bremen managed to pick themselves up again after blowing a 3 goal lead and go on and win against Udinese.

Now you are indeed talking about the important things in live. I'll come back to that later.

only under the agreement that I do not have to change my style and habits here

So you're saying you were always this arrogant and unwilling to admit to making mistakes? Your friends don't seem to agree.

In reply to:

there is the mod sign next to my username

If mods are supposed to be treated exactly the same as everyone else, and held to no higher standard, then why the sign? Why do we need to be told every time you make a post "This is a mod talking"?

In reply to:

I find some of Mokeyboy's and Shelle's words in this thread the worst I have ever come across on this site

Oh you poor sensitive mite.

Get a grip. Regardless of what is said, it's all just words on a screen. If they sting, I'm glad to hear it. You deserved a jolt for the high handed way you attempted to initially dismiss all criticism without even bothering to answer it.

You're debating seriously now, at least, even if poorly and only after the Nazi insults started flying. So don't play the innocent victim here. If you talk down to people and treat them like untermench or children, don't be too surprised if they throw a few childish insults your way.

All hurt feelings and pride aside, don't you think it might be better for everyone, yourself included, if you simply stepped aside now and let someone else take on the burden you seem to find so hard to carry. There are good candidates willing to be held accountable to the higher standards that most people here demand of their mods.

Otherwise, this issue is just likely to run and run. It's not just the assholes like me who want you gone: it's also the reasonable people like Starlite and Dara. So why not just go back to being the normal arrogant asshole you say you were before, free of the burden? You can even tell yourself it's not your fault: I offer myself up as your scapegoat, the Wicked Witch of Seattle.

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

If mods are supposed to be treated exactly the same as everyone else, and held to no higher standard, then why the sign? Why do we need to be told every time you make a post "This is a mod talking"?

I never had that feeling when I wasn't a mod. Only if the mod had tried to exercise alledged mod power on me I would have cared. That never happened. Not then and not later. Again: I find it quite strange that someone like yourself who permanently flexes the muscles is intimidated by a mod sign.

In reply to:

let someone else take on the burden you seem to find so hard to carry.

I never said so and never thought so. I just tried to explain my behaviour and attitude towards the mod job. Don't worry, as long as Adam isn't telling me to leave it I won't. So you can go on raving for more time to come.

while at the time EJ and Ohro were the popular ones. Apparently in my absence both EJ and Ohro are getting criticised

I'd just like to add, again, that I'm not criticizing Ohro per se. She's made... what, 3 posts I felt uncomfortable with?

(Though while this debate has been going on, I think the number doubled.)

She's a good mod. She's a great poster, too. But the system of mods and posters being the same just isn't working if the posters refuse to see that being a mod carries responsibilities they must live up to.

Starlite, with all the personal issues regarding moderation within this thread, yours I understand the least -- For somebody who seldom uses the place, why on earth would a moderators performance, good or bad, bother you? Or Is what you construe as poor moderation the crux of why you prefer not to post at TW on a regular basis?

You talk of a moderators responsibilities -- I personally think that sporadic & negative contribution is highly irresponsible.

If you wish to make a stance against the moderation of this site, please do so by being less of a hypocrite.

Eh? I mean, I come and go, and to be sure, I've been gone a little lately, but I never leave. Even when I don't post, I read the boards. And check out my recent post history: I've made 18 posts over the last 2 days. Plus I've been posting pretty regularly all October.

In reply to:

sporadic & negative contribution is highly irresponsible

I'm sorry, that's just silly. While you may be right in saying that a poster who's not on much shouldn't tell others how to run the boards, the idea that I have any responsibility to post is just ridiculous. I'm on here for my entertainment--I have no obligation to hang around when I don't feel like it. It'd be pretty scary if signing up to a messageboard obliged you to some kind of mininum amount of posts. Unlike moderatorship, this isn't a job.

Strawman, I don't see any hypocrisy in someone saying that a person in power should be held to a higher standard, while not rising to that higher standard themselves - provided that said person making said statement and not rising to said standard isn't a person in power. By saying that there is a different standard and then acting as if it were true, I don't know...I just don't see a contradiction in that.

I don't see any hypocrisy in someone saying that a person in power should be held to a higher standard

I still think this is the core point and the one where we differ essentially: I do not think that a mod has any power unless he excercises the few functions that he has (banning, deleting) in order to get things his way. Then I'd instantly agree. And if you want to criticise the few delitions I have made and the one ban I supported - let's do that.

Again: I find this obsession with moderators being superior quite strange.

Continuing the analogy, how different would my interaction be with people if I were to a) keep it unloaded securely in my closet or b) walk around with it in my hand, casually using it to accentuate my conversation, and letting it be known that it is fully loaded. After all, I know that I'd never use it unless I had to.

I don't want to throw too many analogies out there but if you prefer this one use it: it's like when someone has a dog that's growling and barking at you and they are prickish enough to say "it's okay, they wouldn't bite anyone." Whether that's true or not really doesn't matter much in your handling of the situation, does it?

It's your refusal to acknowledge the gun in your hand and have respect for the fact that it makes people uneasy that I have a problem with. Does this mean that I think you abuse it? Not really, and I think that's where you are tripping in - thankfully - trying to understand where I'm coming from. But I do think that the mods should understand that whether they like it or not, there is inherent power in the title of moderator and that it will always have a bearing on what they say or do here.

I deal with a similar double-edged sword. Look back at what I said about "I'm the guy who posts tubgirl, yata, tata..." I undertand that I put myself in a no-win situation by being both the clown prince of TW and the champion of blind idealism in the Site Feedbag. I simply can't have it both ways, one role will always win out over another one - if only in perception. The big difference here is that while I can treat people like shit and joke about doing unpleasant things to them, I have no power to actually do it. I think poopicraft said that I shouldn't be a moderator because it would be wall to wall tubgirl. While this isn't the case, I do understand that it would be something on the back of everyone's minds. I think I would make a great moderator though, don't you?

Seriously, if you think your theory consequently to the end you'd have to say that noone who is a poster here could take up the job as, following your theory, the "potential" thread is in the job - not in the poster and his actions. This bears an inner logic though it sounds a bt like "every male is a potential rapist".

Now you may argue that a less loudmouthed poster like yourself (so much about your mod qualifications) and I may be a solution but that would still counteract your own thoughts as you'd never know if he/she isn't eventually taking the gun out. And just as K (Sys) said before: Even the moderate Adam has got under fire here over the years.

Subsequently there is only two practical solutions to end the mod/poster dilemma in Monkey think: No moderator at all, as Strawman suggested, or a concealed moderator acting under an alter ego name, someone which noone knows who he/she really is, secretly appointed by Adam.

Both solutions obviously have their faults but coming from your point of view you should vote for one them.

Both solutions obviously have their faults but coming from your point of view you should vote for one them.

I'll take either. Honestly, I don't care between the two.

In reply to:

Seriously, if you think your theory consequently to the end you'd have to say that noone who is a poster here could take up the job as, following your theory, the "potential" thread is in the job - not in the poster and his actions. This bears an inner logic though it sounds a bt like "every male is a potential rapist".

But every male is a potential rapist, no matter how much it bothers me that people say it.

But every male is a potential rapist, no matter how much it bothers me that people say it.

Actually, I don't think every male is a potential rapist, because there's more to rape than having a penis.

But every male is, on some level, a potential sexual threat to a woman. Which is exactly why men in society are expected to keep their sexuality in check*, and why we have sexual harassment laws. It is exactly why you don't go around making sexually explicit comments to women who work for you or with you, no matter that it's just your honest opinion that she's got a nice ass. You're not allowed to express that opinion in that type of environment. Even if you're "a good guy" and would never force yourself on your female subordinate. It's still threatening and makes her feel uncomfortable.

This is getting so dumb now that I should be drunk, too.

[[To be fair, I really need to add that women are also supposed to keep their sexuality in check, and not harass men either.]]

I find it quite strange that someone like yourself who permanently flexes the muscles is intimidated by a mod sign.

I find it quite strange that you refuse to believe your actions are intimidating when even someone as formidable as me admits to being a little intimidated.

In reply to:

Don't worry, as long as Adam isn't telling me to leave it I won't. So you can go on raving for more time to come.

Great. So you finally tell us that Adam is the one we have to pressurize if we want some change around here. I should have realized that middle management always kick the problem upstairs once it exceeds their ability to deal with.

So effectively we have to continue kicking up this fuss until Adam comes back? The general TW population is going to love us for that!

I like dogs. You always know what a dog is thinking. It has four moods. Happy, sad, cross and concentrating. Also, dogs are faithful and they do not tell lies because they cannot talk.

So you finally tell us that Adam is the one we have to pressurize if we want some change around here.

No. Seems like you are again taking your own idea of beahviour as a blueprint for others - but believe me, people are different.

And say what you like but for me Adam is the head of this site. And as Adam and I agreed on me doing the mod job I would never break my word without talking to him first as I do not tend to break agreements just from my side. But don't worry, I wouldn't want to give the job up anyway.

I've had the same problem before and I cannot recall exactly what I did but I effectively had to trick the system (and it's a little bit playing with fire when the system is not always working correctly). Here are some suggestions:

* Try the general TW login page (this gets you into general TW features - not specifically the registry).

Pass on the picnics, and one thing I've quickly come to the conclusion is that the number of genuinely fuckable guys here I could number on the fingers of one hand. Or maybe even on the fingers of one finger.

I didn't want to make things awkward for Shelle but I just want to say that I think we all know she was talking about me. Just sayin'...

And as a side note: I'm totally being serious and not trying to start an argument (really!) but EJ, when you call me "Monkey" it seems like an insult. If you could either try not to do that or convince me that it isn't I'd appreciate it. And please note that I must be totally serious and non-combative because I haven't a) called you anything horrible or b) wished cancer on you.

"OK, I quit. You win. Last post. The end. Goodbye." - Stu, 1 October 2007

Monkeyboy, I'm no mind reader but I think EJ would agree with me that you are a handsome, charming man.

I think the problem is that your username is not an easy one to shorten in a friendly way. Add to that the usual difficulties the German mind has with social interaction, and you've got yourself a right conundrum.